Comrades, we must today decide a question that marks a turning point in the development of the Russian revolution and not only the Russian revolution, but the international revolution as well. And in order to correctly decide the question concerning the most grievous peace that the representatives of Soviet power concluded in Brest-Litovsk and which Soviet power proposes to ratify, in order to correctly decide this question, it is most necessary for us to grasp the historical significance of the turning point at which we stand, to understand what has been the principal characteristic of the development of the revolution up to now and what is the fundamental cause of that severe defeat and the period of grave trials through which we have passed.

It seems to me that the principal source of disagreement among Soviet parties on this question is precisely that some are too much swayed by the feeling of legitimate and righteous indignation at the defeat of the Soviet republic by imperialism, too often surrendering to despair, and instead of taking account of the historical conditions of the revolution's development as they have taken shape before this peace and as they appear to us after it, instead of this they attempt to answer the question of the tactics of the revolution on the basis of immediate feeling. Meanwhile, the whole experience of the history of all revolutions teaches us that, when we are dealing with any mass movement or with class struggle, particularly such as the contemporary struggle that unfolds not only across the whole vast territory of one country but affects all international relations, in this case we must base our tactics first and foremost on an assessment of the objective position, analyzing how the course of the revolution has gone up to now and why it has changed so menacingly, so sharply, so unfavorably for us.

If we look at the development of our revolution from this point of view, we shall clearly see that up to now it has passed through a period of relative and in considerable measure apparent independence and temporary detachment from international relations. The path our revolution has followed from the end of February 1917 to February 11 of the current year, when the German offensive began, this path on the whole has been one of easy and swift victories. If we examine the development of this revolution on an international scale, from the point of view of the development of the Russian revolution alone, we see that we lived through three periods in the course of that year. The first period, when the working class of Russia together with all that was progressive, conscious, and dynamic in the peasantry, supported not only by the petty bourgeoisie but by large-scale bourgeoisie as well, swept away the monarchy in a few days. This dizzying success is explained by the fact that the Russian people, on the one hand, drew from the experience of 1905 a gigantic reserve of revolutionary military capability, and on the other hand, by the fact that Russia, as a particularly backward country, suffered particularly from the war and particularly early found itself in a state of complete impossibility of continuing that war under the old regime.

After the brief and turbulent success, when a new organization was created—the organization of Soviets of workers', soldiers', and peasants' deputies—there followed for our revolution long months of a transition period, a period when the power of the bourgeoisie, immediately undermined by the Soviets, was maintained and strengthened by petty bourgeois conciliatory parties—the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries—which supported this power. This was a power that supported the imperialist war, imperialist secret treaties, fed the working class with promises, a power that did absolutely nothing, which maintained ruin. In this long period for us, for the Russian revolution, the Soviets accumulated their forces; it was a long period for the Russian revolution and short from the international point of view, because in most of the central countries the period of outliving petty-bourgeois illusions, the period of experiencing the conciliation of various parties, factions, and tendencies occupied not months but long, long decades. This period, from April 20 until the resumption of the imperialist war by Kerensky in June, carrying in his pocket a secret imperialist treaty, played a decisive role. In this period we experienced the July defeat, we experienced Kornilovism, and only through the experience of mass struggle, only when the broadest masses of workers and peasants saw not from preaching but from their own experience the complete futility of petty-bourgeois conciliation, only then, after long political development, after long preparation and a change in the mood and views of party groupings, was the ground prepared for the October overturn, and there began the third period of the Russian revolution in its first phase, separated or temporarily detached from the international revolution.

This third period, the October period, the period of organization, the most difficult and at the same time the period of the greatest and swiftest triumphs. From October onward, our revolution, having transferred power into the hands of the revolutionary proletariat, having established its dictatorship, having secured for it the support of an enormous majority of the proletariat and the poorest peasantry, from October onward our revolution proceeded in a victorious, triumphant march. Throughout all corners of Russia civil war began in the form of resistance by exploiters, landowners, and bourgeoisie, supported by a section of imperialist bourgeoisie.

Civil war began, and in this civil war the forces of opponents of Soviet power, the forces of enemies of the laboring and exploited masses, proved negligible; civil war was an unbroken triumph of Soviet power, because its opponents, the exploiters, landowners, and bourgeoisie, had neither political nor economic base whatsoever, and their attack collapsed. The struggle against them combined not so much military action as agitation; layer after layer, masses upon masses, down to the laboring Cossackry, fell away from those exploiters who sought to conduct the struggle against Soviet power.

This period of victorious, triumphant march of the dictatorship of the proletariat and Soviet power, when it attracted unconditionally, decisively, and irreversibly enormous masses of laboring and exploited people in Russia, marked the highest and final point of the development of the Russian revolution, which all this time proceeded as if in independence from international imperialism. This was the reason why the country, most backward and most prepared for revolution by the experience of 1905, so rapidly, so easily, so systematically advanced one class after another to power, outliving separate political formations, and finally arrived at that political formation which was the final word not only of the Russian revolution but of West European workers' revolutions, because Soviet power took root in Russia and acquired irreversible sympathy of the laboring and exploited, because it destroyed the old oppressive apparatus of state power, because in its foundations it created a new and higher type of state, which was the Paris Commune in embryo, having overthrown the old apparatus and put in its place the directly armed force of the masses, replacing bourgeois parliamentarism with the democracy of laboring masses excluding exploiters and systematically suppressing their resistance.

This is what the Russian revolution accomplished in this period, this is why there arose in a small vanguard of the Russian revolution the impression that this triumphant course, this swift march of the Russian revolution could count on further victory. And therein lay the error, because the period in which the Russian revolution developed, transferring power in Russia from one class to another and outliving class conciliation within the bounds of Russia alone, this period could historically exist only because the greatest giants of the predatory world imperialism were temporarily halted in their offensive movement against Soviet power. A revolution that in a few days overthrew the monarchy, in a few months exhausted all attempts at conciliation with the bourgeoisie, and in a few weeks in civil war defeated all resistance by the bourgeoisie—such a revolution, a revolution of a socialist republic, could coexist among imperialist powers, in the atmosphere of world predators, beside the beasts of international imperialism only insofar as the bourgeoisie, locked in mortal combat with one another, was paralyzed in its offensive against Russia.

And now there began that period which we feel so vividly and so painfully—a period of the most severe defeats, the most severe trials for the Russian revolution, a period when, instead of a swift, direct, and open offensive against the enemies of the revolution, we must endure the most severe defeats and retreat before a force immeasurably greater than our force, before the force of international imperialism and financial capital, before military might which the entire bourgeoisie, with its modern techniques, with all its organization, united against us in the interests of plunder, oppression, and strangulation of small nations; we had to think of balancing forces, we were faced with a task immeasurably difficult, we had to see in direct combat not an enemy such as the Romanovs and Kerensky, who cannot be taken seriously, we had to encounter the forces of international bourgeoisie in all its military-imperialist might, to stand face to face with world predators. And it is understandable that, given the delay in assistance from the international socialist proletariat, we had to accept the collision with these forces and suffer the most severe defeat.

And this epoch—the epoch of severe defeats, the epoch of retreats, the epoch when we must save at least a small part of our position, retreating before imperialism, waiting for the time when international conditions will change, while the forces of the European proletariat, which exist, which are maturing, come to our aid—they could not so easily, as we did, deal with their enemy, for it would be the greatest illusion and the greatest error to forget that it was easy for the Russian revolution to begin and difficult to take further steps. This was inevitable because we had to begin with the most rotten, backward political system. The European revolution must begin with the bourgeoisie, must deal with an enemy immeasurably more serious, under conditions immeasurably more difficult. It will be immeasurably harder for the European revolution to begin. We see that it is immeasurably harder to break through the first breach in the system that oppresses it. It will be far easier for it to enter the second and third stages of its revolution. And it cannot be otherwise because of the relationship of forces between revolutionary and reactionary classes that exists at present on the international arena. This is the fundamental turning point that is constantly overlooked by people who look at the present situation, at the extraordinarily grave situation of the revolution, not from a historical point of view but from the point of view of feeling and indignation. And the experience of history tells us that always, in all revolutions, during a period when a revolution experienced a sharp turn and transition from swift victories to a period of severe defeats, there came a period of pseudo-revolutionary phraseology, which always caused the greatest harm to the development of the revolution. And so, comrades, only if we set ourselves the task of taking account of the turn that has cast us from swift, easy victories full of achievements to severe defeats, only then will we be able to correctly evaluate our tactics. This question—an immeasurably difficult, immeasurably grave question—which is the result of a turning point in the development of the revolution at the present time, from easy victories internally to extraordinarily severe defeats externally, and a turning point in the entire international revolution, from an epoch of propaganda and agitation activity of the Russian revolution while imperialism waited, from that epoch to offensive actions of imperialism against Soviet power, puts the question particularly gravely and acutely before the entire international West European movement. If we do not forget this historical moment, we must understand how the basic circle of Russia's interests has taken shape in the question of the present, most grievous, so-called shameful peace.

I have had occasion more than once in polemics against those who refused to accept the necessity of signing this peace to encounter claims that the point of view of signing the peace expresses supposedly the interests only of exhausted peasant masses, declassed soldiers, and so forth and so on. And I have always been surprised, in response to such references and indications, how comrades forget the class scale of national development, people who exclusively search for their own explanations. As if the party of the proletariat, which took power, had not reckoned in advance that only the alliance of the proletariat and semi-proletariat, that is, the poorest peasantry, that is, the majority of Russia's peasantry, only such an alliance could give power in Russia to the revolutionary power of Soviets—the majority, the true majority of the people—that without this every attempt to establish power is senseless, especially in difficult turning points of history. As if it were now possible to get rid of this truth acknowledged by all of us and manage with contemptuous mention of the exhausted state of peasants and declassed soldiers. Regarding the exhausted state of the peasantry and declassed soldiers we must say that the country will bear resistance, that the poorest peasantry can turn to resistance only to the extent to which this poorest peasantry is capable of directing its forces to struggle.

When we took power in October, it was clear that the course of events led inevitably to this, that the turn to Bolshevism of the Soviets meant a turn throughout the entire country, that Bolshevik power was inevitable. When we, conscious of this, proceeded to take power in October, we spoke to ourselves and to all the people with complete clarity and distinctness that this was a transfer of power into the hands of the proletariat and the poorest peasantry, that the proletariat knows that the peasantry will support it, and in what—you yourselves know: in its active struggle for peace, in its readiness to continue further struggle against large-scale financial capital. In this we were not mistaken, and no one can, remaining at all within the bounds of class forces and class relations, be diverted from that indubitable truth, that we cannot ask of a small-peasant country, which has given so much for both the European and the international revolution, to wage struggle on condition of that heavy and most heavy condition, when assistance from the West European proletariat is, undoubtedly, coming to us—facts, strikes, and so forth have proven this—but when this assistance, coming to us, has undoubtedly been delayed. This is why I say that such references to the exhaustion of peasant masses and so forth are simply the result of the absence of arguments and complete helplessness of those who resort to such arguments, a complete absence in them of any possibility of grasping all class relations in their entirety, in their general scope—the revolution of the proletariat and peasantry in their mass; only if, at each sharp turning point of history, we evaluate the relationship of classes as a whole, of all classes, not selecting separate examples and separate cases, only then do we feel ourselves standing firmly on an analysis of probable facts. I fully understand that Russian bourgeoisie now pushes us toward revolutionary war when it is absolutely impossible for us. This is demanded by the class interests of the bourgeoisie.

When they merely cry out: shameful peace, saying not a word about who brought the army to this position, I fully understand that this is the bourgeoisie with the Cadet-Nationalists, the Tseretellist Mensheviks, the Chernov people and their yes-men (applause), I fully understand that this is the bourgeoisie crying out for revolutionary war. This is demanded by its class interests, this is demanded by its aspirations to make Soviet power take a false step. This is understandable from people who, on the one hand, fill the pages of their newspapers with counter-revolutionary writings... (Voices: "Shut them down.") Not all of them yet, unfortunately, but we will shut them all down. (Applause.) I would like to see the proletariat that would allow counter-revolutionaries, supporters of the bourgeoisie and conciliators with it, to continue using the monopoly of wealth for stupefying the people with their bourgeois opium. No such proletariat has ever existed. (Applause.)

I fully understand that from the pages of such publications comes an unceasing wail, a howl and cry against the shameful peace, I fully understand that behind this revolutionary war stand people who, at the same time, from Kadets to right Socialist-Revolutionaries, meet the Germans as they advance and solemnly say: here are the Germans, and let their officers stroll about with their insignia in regions occupied by the invasion of German imperialism. Yes, from such bourgeois, from such conciliators I am not at all surprised at the preaching of revolutionary war. They want Soviet power to fall into a trap. They have shown themselves, these bourgeois and these conciliators. We have seen them and continue to see them in the flesh, we know that here in Ukraine there are Ukrainian Kerensky, Ukrainian Chernov, and Ukrainian Tsereteli—these are the gentlemen Vinnichenko. These gentlemen, Ukrainian Kerensky, Chernov, Tsereteli, concealed from the people the peace they concluded with German imperialists, and now, with the help of German bayonets, attempt to overthrow Soviet power in Ukraine. This is what these bourgeois and these conciliators and their like-minded colleagues have done. (Applause.) This is what these Ukrainian bourgeois and conciliators have done, an example of whom stands before us in full view, who concealed and continue to conceal from the people their secret treaties, who march with German bayonets against Soviet power. This is what Russian bourgeoisie wants, this is where they consciously or unconsciously push the yes-men of the bourgeoisie pushing Soviet power: they know that Soviet power cannot now in any way accept an imperialist war with mighty imperialism. This is why only in this international situation, only in this general class situation can we understand the full depth of the error of those who, like the party of Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, allowed themselves to be carried away by a theory usual in all histories of revolutions in grave moments and consisting halfway of despair, halfway of phraseology, when, instead of soberly looking at reality and evaluating from the point of view of class forces the tasks of revolution regarding internal and external enemies, you are called upon to decide a serious and most grave question under pressure of feeling, only from the point of view of feeling. The peace is incredibly grave and shameful. I myself have had occasion more than once in my statements and speeches to call it the Peace of Tilsit, which the conqueror Napoleon imposed on the Prussian and German peoples after a series of most grievous defeats. Yes, this peace represents a most grievous defeat and humiliates Soviet power, but if you, proceeding from this, limiting yourself to this, appeal to feeling, rouse indignation, attempt to decide the greatest historical question, you fall into that ridiculous and pitiful position in which the entire Socialist-Revolutionary party once found itself (applause), when in 1907, in a situation somewhat similar in certain respects, it equally appealed to the feeling of the revolutionary, when, after the most grave defeat of our revolution in 1906 and 1907, Stolypin prescribed laws to us concerning the Third Duma, the most shameful and grave conditions of work in one of the most vile representative institutions, when our party, after a small wavering within itself (there was more wavering on this question then than now), resolved the question in such a way that we have no right to surrender to feeling, that, however great our indignation and outrage at the most shameful Third Duma, we must recognize that this is not chance but historical necessity of the developing class struggle, which had not enough strength further, which would gather those forces even under these shameful conditions that were prescribed. We proved right. Those who tried to carry away the revolution with revolutionary phraseology, to carry it away with justice, insofar as it expressed a triply legitimate feeling, those received a lesson that will not be forgotten by any thinking and thoughtful revolutionary.

Revolutions do not proceed so smoothly as to assure us of a swift and easy rise. There has not been a single great revolution, even within national bounds, that did not experience a heavy period of defeats, and it is impossible to relate to a serious question of mass movements, of developing revolutions, in such a way that, proclaiming the peace shameful and humiliating, a revolutionary cannot come to terms with it; it is insufficient to cite agitational phrases, to shower us with reproaches about this peace—this is the well-known alphabet of revolution, this is the well-known experience of all revolutions. Our experience since 1905—and if we are rich in anything, if the Russian working class and poorest peasantry owe anything to a particular circumstance that allowed it to assume the most difficult and most honorable role of beginning the international socialist revolution, it is precisely because the Russian people succeeded, thanks to a particular convergence of historical circumstances, in the early twentieth century to conduct two great revolutions—this is the lesson we must learn from the experience of these revolutions, we must understand that, only taking into account changes in the relationship of class connections of one state to another, can we establish that we are not in a position to accept battle now; we must reckon with this, must say to ourselves: whatever the breathing space, however fragile, however short, grave and humiliating the peace, it is better than war, because it gives the people's masses the possibility to breathe, because it gives the possibility to correct what the bourgeoisie has done, which now cries out everywhere it has the possibility to cry out, especially under the protection of the Germans in occupied regions. (Applause.)

The bourgeoisie cries out that the Bolsheviks have decomposed the army, that there is no army, and that the Bolsheviks are to blame for this, but let us look at the past, comrades, let us look, first of all, at the development of our revolution. Do you not know that the flight and decomposition of our army began long before the revolution, still in 1916, and that everyone who has seen the army must recognize this? And what did our bourgeoisie do to prevent this? Is it not clear that the only chance of salvation from imperialists was then in its hands, that this chance presented itself in March-April, when the Soviet organizations could have taken power by a simple motion of the hand against the bourgeoisie? And if the Soviets had then taken power, if the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois intelligentsia, with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, instead of helping Kerensky deceive the people, hiding secret treaties and leading the army into offensive, if it had then come to the aid of the army, supplying it with weapons, provisions, forcing the bourgeoisie to help the fatherland with the cooperation of all the intelligentsia, not the fatherland of traders, not the fatherland of treaties helping to exterminate people (applause), if the Soviets, forcing the bourgeoisie to help the fatherland of workers, of peasants, had helped the clotheless, shoeless, hungry army, then we would have, perhaps, a ten-month period sufficient to give the army a chance to breathe and to give unanimous support so that it, not retreating a single step from the front, would offer a universal democratic peace, breaking the secret treaties, but hold the front, not retreating a single step. There is where a chance for peace lay, which workers and peasants gave and approved. This is the tactic of defense of the fatherland, not the fatherland of the Romanovs, Kerensky, Chernov, the fatherland with secret treaties, the fatherland of venal bourgeoisie, but the fatherland of the laboring masses. This is who led to it, that the transition from war to revolution and from the Russian revolution to international socialism proceeds with such heavy trials. This is why such an empty phrase sounds such a proposal as revolutionary war, when we know that we have no army, when we know that it was impossible to keep the army, and people familiar with the matter could not fail to see that our decree on demobilization was not invented, but is the result of obvious necessity, simple impossibility of keeping the army. It was impossible to keep the army. And an officer was right, not a Bolshevik, who said even before the October overturn that the army cannot and will not fight. This is what months of trading with the bourgeoisie and all speeches about the necessity of continuing the war led to; however noble the feelings that inspired them on the part of many revolutionaries, or few revolutionaries, they proved empty revolutionary phrases, surrendering themselves to the machinations of international imperialism so it could rob us still more and even more, as it already succeeded in doing after our tactical or diplomatic error—after the failure to sign the Brest treaty. When we said to opponents of signing the peace: if the breathing space were at all prolonged, you would understand that the interests of the army's recovery, the interests of the laboring masses stand above everything and that peace must be concluded for this reason, they asserted that there could be no breathing space.

But our revolution differed from all previous revolutions precisely in that it raised the thirst for construction and creativity in the masses, when the laboring masses in the most remote villages, humiliated, crushed, oppressed by tsars, landowners, bourgeoisie, rise up, and this period of the revolution is only now completing, when the village revolution is taking place, which is building life anew. And for the sake of this breathing space, however brief and small, we are obliged, if we place the interests of the laboring masses above the interests of bourgeois warriors who wave their sabers and call us to battle, we were obliged to sign this treaty. This is what revolution teaches. Revolution teaches that, when we make diplomatic errors, when we suppose that German workers will come to our aid tomorrow in the hope that Liebknecht will triumph now (and we know that one way or another Liebknecht will triumph, it is inevitable in the development of the workers' movement (applause)), this means that, in our enthusiasm, revolutionary slogans of the difficult socialist movement are transformed into phraseology. And not a single representative of the laboring masses, not a single honest worker will refuse to make the greatest sacrifice to aid the socialist movement of Germany, because all this time on the front he has learned to distinguish between German imperialists and German soldiers tortured by German discipline, for the most part sympathizing with us. This is why I say that the Russian revolution has practically corrected our error, corrected it with this breathing space. Quite probably it will be very short, but we have the possibility of at least a brief breathing space so that the army, which is exhausted, famished, filled with consciousness that it has received the possibility to catch its breath. It is clear to us that the period of old imperialist wars has ended and new horrors threaten from the beginning of new wars, but periods of such wars have existed in many historical epochs, and they acquired the greatest intensification before their ending. And it is necessary that this be understood not only at rallies in Petrograd and Moscow; it must be understood in the villages by many tens of millions, so that the most enlightened part of the village that has returned from the front, which has lived through all the horrors of war, helps to make this understood, and the enormous mass of peasants and workers becomes convinced of the necessity of a revolutionary front and says that we acted correctly.

We are told that we have betrayed Ukraine and Finland—oh, what shame! But such a situation has come about that we are cut off from Finland, with which we had concluded before, before the beginning of the revolution, a silent understanding and have now concluded formally. They say that we are surrendering Ukraine, which Chernov, Kerensky, and Tsereteli go about destroying; we are told: traitors, you have betrayed Ukraine! I say: comrades, I have seen enough scenes in the history of revolution to be confused by the hostile looks and cries of people who surrender to feeling and cannot reason. I will give you a simple example. Imagine two friends walking at night, and suddenly ten men attack them. If these scoundrels cut off one of them—what is left for the other?—he cannot rush to help; if he runs away, is he a traitor? And imagine that we are not talking about persons or regions where matters of immediate feeling are decided, but five armies of one hundred thousand men each that surround an army of two hundred thousand men, and another army must go to its aid. But if this army knows that it will certainly fall into a trap, it must retreat; it cannot fail to retreat, even though to cover the retreat it might be necessary to sign a shameful, filthy peace—curse it as you will, but still it is necessary to sign it. It is impossible to take account of the feeling of a duelist who draws his sword and says that I must die because they force me to conclude a humiliating peace. But we all know that however you decide it, we have no army, and no gestures will save us from the necessity of retreating and gaining time so that the army can catch its breath, and everyone will agree with this who looks at reality rather than deceiving himself with revolutionary phraseology. Everyone must know this who looks at reality, not deceiving himself with phrases and airs.

If we know this, then our revolutionary duty is to sign, although a grave, most heavy and violent treaty, because by this we achieve a better position both for us and for our allies. Did we lose anything by signing the peace treaty on March 3? Everyone who wishes to look at things from the point of view of mass relations rather than from the point of view of a small-town duelist will understand that, without an army or having only a sick remnant of the army, to accept war, to call such a war revolutionary is self-deception, is the greatest deception of the people. Our duty is to tell the truth to the people: yes, the peace is most grave, Ukraine and Finland are perishing, but we must accept this peace, and all conscious laboring Russia will accept it because it knows the unvarnished truth, it knows what war is, it knows that staking everything, reckoning with the fact that a German revolution will break out now, is self-deception. By signing the peace, we obtained what our Finnish friends obtained from us—a breathing space, help, and not destruction.

I know examples in the history of peoples when a much more violent peace was signed, when this peace surrendered to the mercy of the victor viable peoples. Let us compare this peace of ours with the Peace of Tilsit; the Peace of Tilsit was imposed by the victorious conqueror on Prussia and Germany. This peace was so grave that not only were all the capitals of all German states seized, not only were the Prussians beaten back to Tilsit, which equals being beaten back to Omsk or Tomsk. Worse still—the greatest horror lay in that Napoleon forced the vanquished peoples to provide auxiliary troops for his wars, and when, nevertheless, the situation developed such that the German peoples had to withstand the onslaught of the conqueror, when the epoch of France's revolutionary wars was replaced by the epoch of imperialist conquering wars, then it became clear what those people carried away by phraseology do not wish to understand, who depict the signing of peace as a fall. From the point of view of a small-town duelist this psychology is understandable, but not from the point of view of a worker and peasant. The latter underwent the heavy school of war and learned how to count. There were trials more severe, and more backward peoples emerged from them. There were more grievous peaces concluded, and concluded by the Germans at an epoch when they had no army, or their army was sick, as our army is sick. They concluded a most grievous peace with Napoleon. And this peace was not the fall of Germany—on the contrary, it was a turning point, national defense, and revival. And we stand on the eve of such a turning point, and we are experiencing conditions analogous to it. We must look truth in the face and banish from ourselves phrase and declamation. We must say that if it is necessary, then peace must be concluded. A liberation war, a class war, a people's war will take the place of the Napoleonic war. The system of Napoleonic wars will change, peace will replace war, war will replace peace, and from each new most grievous peace there always flowed more extensive preparation for war. The most grievous of peace treaties—the Peace of Tilsit—entered history as a turning point to the time when a turn began for the German people, when it retreated to Tilsit, to Russia, but actually was winning time, waiting for when the international situation that for a time had allowed Napoleon, such a robber as now Hohenzollern, Hindenburg, to triumph, for when this situation changed, for when consciousness grew healthier in a people tortured by ten years of Napoleonic wars and defeats, and when it rose again to new life. This is what history teaches us, this is why all despair and phraseology are criminal, this is why everyone will say: yes, old imperialist wars are ending. A historical turning point has come.

From October our revolution was an unbroken triumph, and now have begun long and difficult times; we do not know how long, but we know that it is a long and difficult period of defeats and retreats, because such is the relationship of forces, because by retreating we will give the people rest. Let us give the possibility for every worker and peasant to understand that truth which will give him the possibility to understand that new wars are coming by imperialist predators against oppressed peoples, when the worker and peasant understands that we must stand to defend the fatherland, because from October we have become defenders. From October 25 we said openly that we are for the defense of the fatherland, because we have this fatherland, from which we drove out the Kerensky and Chernov, because we destroyed the secret treaties, we suppressed the bourgeoisie, still poorly, but we will learn to do it better.

Comrades, there is an even more important distinction between the state of the Russian people, who have suffered most severe defeats from the conqueror Germany, and the German people, there is the greatest distinction which must be mentioned, although I spoke of it briefly in the earlier part of my speech. Comrades, when more than a hundred years ago the German people fell into a period of most severe conquering wars, a period when it had to retreat and sign one shameful peace after another, before the German people awakened, the matter stood thus: the German people was only weak and backward, only that. Against it stood not only the military force and might of the conqueror Napoleon, against it stood a country that was superior to it in the revolutionary and political sense, superior to Germany in all respects, that had risen immeasurably above other countries, that had spoken the last word. It was immeasurably superior to the people that languished in subjection to imperialists and landowners. The people, which was, I repeat, only a weak and only backward people, managed to learn from bitter lessons and rise up. We are in a better position: we are not only a weak and not only a backward people, we are that people which has managed—not thanks to special merits or historical predestinations, but thanks to a special convergence of historical circumstances—to assume the honor of raising the banner of the international socialist revolution. (Applause.)

I know perfectly well, comrades, and I have said directly more than once, that this banner is in weak hands, and it will not be held by the workers of the most backward country until the workers of all advanced countries come to their aid. The socialist transformations that we have accomplished are in many respects imperfect, weak, and insufficient: they will be an indication to West European advanced workers, who will say to themselves: "the Russians began not quite right the business that had to be begun," but what is important is that our people in relation to the German people are not only a weak and not only a backward people, but the people that raised the banner of revolution. If the bourgeoisie of any country whatsoever fills all the columns of its publications with slanders against the Bolsheviks, if in this respect the voices of the press of imperialists of France, England, Germany, and so forth merge in reviling the Bolsheviks, then there is not a single country where one could not gather an assembly of workers where the names and slogans of our socialist power provoked out